Top Court To Rule On Judge Elections

December 4, 2001|By David G. Savage Washington and Information from Newsday was used to supplement this report. and Correspondent

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide an issue that goes to the heart of the debate about state judicial elections: Do candidates for judgeships have a free-speech right to take stands on controversial issues?

Two-thirds of the states elect some or all of their judges. Yet by tradition and by law, these campaigns are staid, low-key affairs. Professional qualities and experience are emphasized, while a candidate's party affiliation and ideological views are downplayed.

Most states enforce a judicial code of conduct that requires prospective judges to refrain from taking stands on "cases, controversies or issues" that might come before the court.

But in recent years, big-money campaigning and ideological politics have invaded the world of judicial elections in a number of states, particularly in the South and Midwest.

Business groups have funded candidates who sought to oust state supreme court judges who were seen as too sympathetic to plaintiffs and trial lawyers. The trend toward more openly partisan and ideological campaigns has run squarely into the judicial tradition of keeping politics at arm's length.

Republican Party lawyers and anti-abortion advocates brought the issue to the high court this fall in a case from Minnesota.

Gregory Wersal, a Minneapolis-area lawyer and an active Republican, ran for a state Supreme Court seat in 1996 and 1998 by stressing his party affiliation. He also issued statements criticizing decisions of the state Supreme Court on issues such as crime, welfare and abortion, saying they were marked by a "lack of common sense."

An ethics complaint was filed against Wersal and he responded by filing a lawsuit to challenge the state's judicial code of conduct.

The U.S. Court of Appeals rejected his free-speech claim. Judges are different from politicians, wrote Judge John Gibbons for the appeals court. Candidates for the legislature and the governor's office need to tell the voters about their views. However, "a state may determine this mode of campaigning is fundamentally at odds with the judge's obligation to render impartial decisions based on the law and the facts."

But the state's Republican Party appealed on Wersal's behalf, arguing that the state made the choice to elect its judges.

Also Monday:

The Supreme Court refused to revive an anti-monopoly rule in the cable television industry.

The court announced it would stay out of the decades-old controversy over racially segregated housing in Yonkers, N.Y., leaving in force a federal judge's plan to integrate the city's neighborhoods by giving minorities preference in public housing.

Information from Newsday was used to supplement this report.

David G. Savage writes for the Los Angeles Times, a Tribune Co. newspaper.